<p>"She says they often showed up announced at her school and told her department head she had mental issues that could force them to go to court to have her treated.</p>
<p>Her parents admitted they installed monitoring software on their daughter’s laptop and cellphone. Aubrey said it was like she was “a dog with a collar on.”"</p>
<p>"School helps student after parents stop paying for education</p>
<p>A suburban Kansas City woman studying music theater at the University of Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music has won a stalking protection order against her parents … 21-year-old Aubrey Ireland of Leawood has convinced a Cincinnati judge that her parents have been harassing her.</p>
<p>She says they often showed up announced at her school and told her department head she had mental issues that could force them to go to court to have her treated.</p>
<p>Her parents admitted they installed monitoring software on their daughter’s laptop and cellphone. Aubrey said it was like she was ‘a dog with a collar on.’ "</p>
<p>While this is an extreme example with allegations of mental illness, etc., I wonder if some parents think keeping track of their college student via electronic means might not be totally out of bounds…</p>
<p>What do you think? Does it make a difference if the parents are paying the bills?</p>
<p>This is an extreme case, but in general, if I pay the cell bill and it is under my contract and if the laptop was purchased by me as the parent, I don’t find it unreasonable to have tracking on each. I would even see this as a safety and theft protection for the student.</p>
<p>Using that tracking as stalking is too far.</p>
<p>Student is over 18, and has certain rights. However, parents or anyone can put certain stipulation when they are paying for things. If that is her computer, her phone–the student’s, that is, then she has every right to be upset and insist the tracking get removed. But if I choose buy a cell phone and laptop with tracking and permit my kid or anyone to use it with the condition that the tracking remain on it, then that is my choice. If they don’t like it, they don’t have to take the items. If they were gifts, the tracking can be removed once in your possession.</p>
<p>However, I don’t track my kids via phone, laptop or whatever even as minors and certainly not as adults.</p>
<p>You can buy software that you install on the computer that will track all activity.</p>
<p>No way I would ever do this on my adult child’s phone or computer - even if I technically could if I was paying for them. It’s a total invasion of privacy IMO.</p>
<p>My ex paid for an expensive laptop for D and paid for a “lojack” type program to be installed on it such that you can go online and track where it is in the event it is stolen. He could, if he wanted to, use it to see not only where the laptop is, but how often she uses it. </p>
<p>A local guy had his laptop or ipad stolen and activated the tracking and alarm and helped police catch the thief. So these programs can be very useful. </p>
<p>I think these programs are good for THAT purpose, but not to actually track our kids. Even if we’re paying for their schooling, unless they’re making bad decisions or are in trouble, I see no need to know where they are at all times.</p>
<p>“She says they often showed up announced at her school and told her department head she had mental issues that could force them to go to court to have her treated.”</p>
<p>Is Virgina Tech really that far back in time? I dont like the assumption that its the parents who are nuts here. At least the news could have talked to them to get their side.</p>
<p>Moreover, some courts have ruled installing such tracking programs/devices without the knowledge & consent of the device’s owner is a violation of cyber security and privacy laws. </p>
<p>There were a few cases throughout the country where one spouse has been legally sanctioned with jail time for doing so on another spouse’s cell phone and/or computer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apples and cranberries. </p>
<p>Moreover, the parents’ case has been undermined by the judge’s ruling that they were stalking her and the order that they stay at least 500 feet from her. </p>
<p>Something about them/their case was found wanting by the presiding judge to issue that ruling. </p>
<p>If the school felt the need to hire security guards to keep her parents away from her performances/her…the judge must have taken that into account into feeling there’s something unbalanced about the parents.</p>
<p>I wonder if these parents belong to a cult or some kind “out there” religion. The fact that the BOTH don’t think this behavior is beyond any kind of normalcy makes me think that they are associated with some kind of over-controlling group.</p>
<p>No I wouldn’t do this but I’ll bet the parents of the various students that have gone missing (eg a young co ed in Ill. or Indiana is most recent that I remember) wish they had that tracking feature when they needed it…</p>
<p>No, its the same issue. People want society To Do Something when nuts flip out but then we object to the idea that there will have to be intrusiveness to monitor the nuts. It seems to me that there is going to be a tension between mental health issues that need to be addressed and mental health issues that the person is voluntarily willing to get addressed. </p>
<p>I am not saying anything about this particular case although I’d give a small preference to the daughter’s case because of the schools actions. The judge is just reacting to the illegal monitoring by the parents. </p>
<p>What I do object to is the way that news sites like HuffPo are treating the parents concern about the mental health of the daughter as a source of amusement. Oh those helicopter parents!</p>
<p>If James Holmes parents had kept a closer watch on him would that have been a bad thing?</p>
<p>First, the parents asserted their D is mentally ill without submitting compellingly credible to the school or judge. If anything, they both found the parents to be the ones who are problematic. </p>
<p>Diagnoses of mental illness can only be done by a medical professional…not non-professionals like their parents. The judge certainly didn’t regard their “assessment” as valid based on his ruling. </p>
<p>Secondly, the way those parents went about tracking their D has already been proven to be legally problematic in some jurisdictions as illustrated by several recent cases of spouses using such techniques on their SOs…and then getting slapped with jail time for it.</p>
<p>argbargy: The judge is just reacting to the illegal monitoring by the parents.</p>
<p>Hmmm, doesn’t sound that way at all:</p>
<p>*After Common Pleas Court Judge Jody Luebbers asked the sides to work out a settlement moments before the Dec. 10 court hearing started, Julie Ireland told her daughter’s attorney they wanted her to return to them the $66,000 they’d spent on her three years of college tuition.</p>
<p>After an intervention failed when the mediators told the parents they, not their daughter, were the issue, the Irelands said their daughter was “a good actor and lying.”*</p>
<p>From what a mediator friend told me, once one or both sides decides to attack the others’ character and reputation like that, there’s very little chance there’s any more benefit to be gained from prolonged mediation. </p>
<p>Sounds like the mediators in that case came to that conclusion after observing the parents’ behavior…</p>